2 C O N T E X T 1 0 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 8 Context Briefing Copy deadlines Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November. The deadline for submission of material for the March 2009 edition, Issue 108, is 13 March. Editor Rob Cowan Editorial Coordinator Fiona Newton 21 George Street, Louth, Lincolnshire LN11 9JU Tel 01507 602567 email editorial@ihbc.org.uk Editorial Board Fiona Newton (chair) Susan Brook (treasurer) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Michael Taylor (main features) Cartoons by Rob Cowan Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2008 ISSN 0958-2746 Publisher Published for the Institute of Historic Building Conservation by Cathedral Communications Limited, High Street, Tisbury,Wiltshire, England SP3 6HA Tel 01747 871717 Fax 01747 871718 email context@cathcomm.demon.co.uk www.buildingconservation.com Non-member subscriptions to Context Context is available to non-members of the IHBC at an annual subscription rate, including postage, of: United Kingdom £50.00 Elsewhere £75.00 Subscription orders, together with remittances payable to Institute of Historic Building Conservation, should be sent to the IHBC Business Office at Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA. The views expressed in Context are not necessarily held by the IHBC or the publisher. Neither the publisher nor the IHBC shall be under any liability whatsoever in respect of contributed articles. We gratefully acknowledge the support of firms whose advertisements appear throughout this publication.While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this issue of Context is current and correct, neither the IHBC nor the publisher can be held responsible for any errors or omissions which may occur. Defining curtilage Conservation officers need to take the issue of curtilage a great deal more seriously after the ombudsman required Cherwell District Council to pay £10,000 compensation and review all the Land Charges Register entries for listed buildings, after incorrectly identifying a curtilage-listed building and deciding that alterations to it were unauthorised. Although the ombudsman recognised that the circumstances of this particular case were complicated, it is worth noting a number of points: 1.These situations can potentially arise quite frequently, especially in rural areas where curtilages are often much less precisely defined. 2.The definition of curtilage used in Gardner’s Local Land Charges reference manual is quite rudimentary. It does not appear to reflect the thinking in listed building legal books (such as Charles Mynors’) with respect to current curtilage case law. 3.The definition of curtilage will generally will be a significant factor in future in relation to geographic information systems and the National Property Referencing System. 4. If curtilage has not yet been accurately defined by the local authority for local land charges purposes, this may put the authority at risk of challenge. It could also become a significant workload item for already overstretched conservation officers. 5.This will expose what many rural local planning authorities know to be incorrect, missing or ill-defined list entries, particularly those going back to the 1970s, and potential legal difficulties where consent or remediation action may have been required against wrongly designated buildings. 6.Most important, there will be implications for the transfer of list entries into the new heritage asset register (the so-called ‘legacy designations’: ugh!) where the asset will presumably require a new definitive map boundary (more work, more interpretation, insufficient resources?). The implications of the Cherwell adjudication have been drawn to the attention of Heritage Protection Division at English Heritage and its response to this will be awaited with interest. (Complaint No 06/B/17474 is dated 2 July 2008. In case of difficulty in locating this adjudication on the Local Government Ombudsman’s website, a copy can be obtained from bob. kindred@ipswich.gov.uk.) Bob Kindred MBE Prepare for take-off Airport operator BAA is being forced to remove unsuitable plastic double-glazed windows which it has installed illegally in one of the listed buildings the company owns near Stansted Airport in Essex. Action is being taken against BAA after the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) alerted the local authority to the unauthorised work. The building, a Grade II listed timber-framed and thatched cottage at Woodgates End in Broxted, dates from the 17th century or earlier. Uttlesford District Council is insisting that BAA submit a formal application to replace the windows with more suitable glazing. If it does not comply, BAA could face prosecution. The SPAB has been concerned about the plight of listed buildings owned by BAA near Stansted for some time and will continue to monitor their condition. Shire Hall restored The Grade I listed Shire Hall in Monmouth is being restored with the help of a £3.1 million grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund. The work by specialist contractors LinfordBridgeman involves restoring and repairing the structure, replacing the roof and installing a new lift. Built in 1724 to the design of Philip Fisher of Bristol, Shire Hall was the Shire Hall, Monmouth
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=